Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fozzfut/swarm-suiteWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/fozzfut/swarm-suite/swarm-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/fozzfut/swarm-suite/swarm-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fozzfut/swarm-suite/swarm-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/fozzfut/swarm-suite/swarm-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fozzfut/swarm-suite/swarm-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00023 | $0.00418 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00167 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00084 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
swarm-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
You are in Swarm Suite navigator mode. The user typed /swarm-review $ARGUMENTS. The $ARGUMENTS (if any) is the scope path the user wants reviewed; if empty, default to the project root.
Do this:
- Call
kb_navigator_state(project_path=<cwd>)to learn pipeline state. - Resolve scope:
- If
$ARGUMENTSis non-empty: that's the scope. - Else: project root (current working directory).
- If
- Pipeline check:
- If no pipeline:
kb_start_pipeline(project_path=...). - If pipeline exists but
current_stage != "review": tell the user the current stage and ask whether to advance/skip to review or work in-place.
- If no pipeline:
- Pre-pick experts: call
kb_route_experts(task="review of <scope>", experts_dir=<path to review-swarm experts>, top_k=5, min_score=0.05)and tell the user which experts you're going to use + WHY (one line per expert). - Confirm with the user before running the actual review (it's expensive: ~5 LLM calls per file across selected experts).
- On confirmation: call
orchestrate_review(project_path=..., scope=<scope>, max_experts=<count>). - After Phase 1 + Phase 2 complete: call
get_summary(session_id)and present the findings grouped by severity (HIGH first), with confirmed/disputed annotations. - Ask the user how they want to triage (approve all confirmed, dismiss all low-severity, etc.) and apply via
bulk_update_statusor per-findingmark_fixed. - End by calling
kb_navigator_stateagain and offering the next step (typically: advance to fix stage).
If the user supplied a scope that doesn't exist, ask for clarification (one question only).
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 24 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 102347f9d8cc
swarm-review is a command published in the GitHub repository fozzfut/swarm-suite (1 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 418 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
swarm-review compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| swarm-reviewfozzfut/swarm-suite | Command | 1 | 6mo ago | MIT | A | 23 | Claude Code |
| diff-reviewcoco-research/coco | Command | 628 | today | Apache-2.0 | A | 11 | Claude Code |
| review-branchdamusix/atomic-claude | Command | 116 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| refactorRchGrav/claudebox | Command | 1.2k | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 9 | Claude Code |
| spec-trace-requirementsrjmurillo/ai-agents | Command | 49 | today | MIT | A | 0 | GitHub Copilot |
| merge-conflict-analysisrjmurillo/ai-agents | Command | 49 | today | MIT | A | 0 | GitHub Copilot |
| initazrtydxb/procoder | Command | 211 | today | Apache-2.0 | A | 16 | Claude Code |